Talk:The Aurors (IGN April Fool's 2011)
ttHIS WHOLE NEW T.V. SHOW ON THE CHANNEL IS A COMPLETE LIE AND NOT TRUTHFUL.THEY JUST JUST WANT TO PUT IT ON YOU BUNCH OF WHIPPING LIEING FROGS. Well, I thought it was obvious, since I put the effing "APRIL FOOLS" right there in the title. Alexander.proff 10:23, April 25, 2011 (UTC) Canonicity Even though it was just an April Fool's joke and was never actually broadcast, can we consider what little information given to be canon? --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 21:59, June 13, 2013 (UTC) :How could it be at all canon? As far as I know, it was never authorised by either J. K. Rowling or Warner Bros., which would place it firmly within the realm of fanon or spoof. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:36, June 13, 2013 (UTC) ::Just figured I'd make sure. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 23:56, June 13, 2013 (UTC) :::No worries. It'd be interesting if it were canon, to be sure, but without backing from Rowling or anyone else involved officially with the Harry Potter franchise, it can't be anything but fanon. ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:27, June 14, 2013 (UTC) ::::Such a shame, that X-ray of a rat Animagus was quite fascinating... oh well. Congratulations, by the way, on 11,000 pages. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 00:46, June 14, 2013 (UTC) :::::It's such a shame that it's not true!! I would really enjoy watching it. A mix between crime movie and Harry Potter universe. But can we at least post pictures from the trailer and put them on the article? I mean, the elder man, the Auror-to-be, the dark wizard, a supposedly very powerful Expulso and Killing Curse? --DCLM (talk) 05:18, June 14, 2013 (UTC) ::::::Again, it's a nice idea, but given its non-canon status, we should really just stick with the poster and the link to the video. ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:23, June 14, 2013 (UTC) :::::::I know you said they can't be canon, but you never said they couldn't have articles if they were clearly marked as non-canon. If you want then you can delete the already existing "William Abricht" article, I just figured I'd demonstrate the sort of thing that could be done if it was agreed to be a good idea. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 22:26, June 14, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::PS: I only made the article before I saw your recent edit to "Auror training", which I now see as definitive proof that it isn't allowed any place here--Hunnie Bunn (talk) 22:28, June 14, 2013 (UTC). :::::::::Yeah, we can't have articles about the characters either; it just clearly violates policy. If we did that, we may as well just start having articles for characters from Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality and all of that too. We can have articles marked "non-canon" stemming from official sources, such as things like Quidditch Goggles, which appear in the films but can't be considered canon due to the way things are presented in the books, but we can't start creating articles based on characters or objects that appear in fanon and mark them this way. ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:38, June 14, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::::I agree. And I'm sorry about the link to "Auror training" and the Behind the scenes-section about the 'American this and that' that referred to the events of this trailer. I made it before I got an answer. --DCLM (talk) 11:14, June 15, 2013 (UTC)